Blurring the line between church and state

[jimmyjazz 45898]

AG Bill Barr spoke at Notre Dame last week, and as one might expect, he sermonized at length about the modern "attack on religion".  Jeffrey Toobin reacts:

Poor evangelicals

Spoiler

A recent speech by Attorney General William Barr portrays religious people in the United States as beset by a hostile band of “secularists,” in order to press for a right-wing political agenda.

Photograph by Erin Scott / Reuters

 

William P. Barr just gave the worst speech by an Attorney General of the United States in modern history. Speaking at the University of Notre Dame last Friday, Barr took “religious liberty” as his subject, and he portrayed his fellow-believers as a beleaguered and oppressed minority. He was addressing, he said, “the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; this is organized destruction.”

Historically illiterate, morally obtuse, and willfully misleading, the speech portrays religious people in the United States as beset by a hostile band of “secularists.” Actually, religion is thriving here (as it should be in a free society), but Barr claims the mantle of victimhood in order to press for a right-wing political agenda. In a potted history of the founding of the Republic, Barr said, “In the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people—a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order.” Not so. The Framers believed that free government was suitable for believers and nonbelievers alike. As Justice Hugo Black put it in 1961, “Neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” But the real harm of Barr’s speech is not what it means for historical debates but what it portends for contemporary government policy.

The real giveaway of Barr’s agenda came near the end of his speech, when he said, with curious vagueness, “Militant secularists today do not have a live-and-let-live spirit—they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.” What’s he really talking about here? Barr and the Trump Administration want religious people who operate businesses to be allowed to discriminate against L.G.B.T.Q. people. The Trump Justice Department supported the Colorado bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (in a case that the Supreme Court basically ducked last year), but more such lawsuits are in the pipeline. Innkeepers, restaurant owners, and photographers are all using the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment to justify their refusal to serve gay customers. This is Barr’s idea of leaving “religious people alone to practice their faith.” The real beleaguered minorities here are gay people who are simply trying to be treated like everyone else, but Barr twists this story into one about oppression of believers.

The heart of Barr’s speech is devoted to a supposed war on religion in education. “Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty,” he said. He asserted that the problem is “state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.” Again, Barr engages in a measure of vagueness to obscure his real subject. Historically, parochial schools have flourished largely outside of government supervision and, just as important, without government funding. This reflects the core meaning of the establishment clause, which enshrines the separation of church and state.

But, in recent years, a key tenet of the evangelical movement (and its supporters, like Barr) has been an effort to get access to taxpayer dollars. In a major case before the Supreme Court this year, the Trump Administration is supporting religious parents who want to use a Montana state-tax-credit program to pay for their children’s religious schools. This effort is also a major priority of Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, who is pushing for the increased availability of taxpayer vouchers to pay for religious schools. Barr portrays these efforts as the free exercise of religion when, in fact, they are the establishment of religion; partisanship in the war between the religion clauses is one of the signatures of Trump’s tenure in office. Of course, the necessary corollary to providing government subsidies to religious schools is starving the public schools, which are open to all children, of funds.

Perhaps the most galling part of Barr’s speech, under current circumstances, is its hymn to the pious life. He denounces “moral chaos” and “irresponsible personal conduct,” as well as “licentiousness—the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good.” By contrast, “religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good.” Throughout this lecture, one can only wonder if William Barr has ever actually met Donald Trump.

 

[workswithseed 2100]

I agree with most of the article. Not so much the bakery case, but the use of tax dollars to find private schools, same with if Barr ever met Trump. 

What's your thoughts on it, @jimmyjazz?

[jimmyjazz 45898]

I think Barr is weaponizing religion to further draw distinctions between the right and the left.

As a liberal Christian, I find that not only disgusting but infuriating.

[TwiceHorn 31448]

One might think ND, although church-affiliated, would not be an ideal place to proselytize about the plight of evangelicals.

Although the backlash against shithead-Christians is going to be bad for the Christian-Christians.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45898]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

One might think ND, although church-affiliated, would not be an ideal place to proselytize about the plight of evangelicals.

I agree, although I don't think the Catholics have sole claim to the moral high ground, either.

I recently saw a Pew report about the shrinking political class in America.  It mirrors the slow erosion of the white majority, if a decade or two behind, and it has certain groups terrified.

[TwiceHorn 31448]

And, I suppose we have to admit that there is a somewhat unfounded hostility toward all religion based almost solely on the transgressions of evangelicals.

If you don't want to admit that most Methodists and Episcopalians are ok. then think of the Buddhists or the Unitarians, or the Rosicrucians ffs.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

way past time to tax churches - and all religious institutions. I don't care how much charity they provide of if they're one of the good actors. we have shown generation after generation that politics and religion cannot be inherently separated in this country, so might as well make the marriage official. Pastor Osteen can preach whatever the fuck he wants from the pulpit, as long as 25% of that that 10% goes back to the people.

and I patently reject the idea that religion is under attack in this country. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Longhorn_Fan68

[TwiceHorn 31448]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

way past time to tax churches - and all religious institutions. I don't care how much charity they provide of if they're one of the good actors. we have shown generation after generation that politics and religion cannot be inherently separated in this country, so might as well make the marriage official. Pastor Osteen can preach whatever the fuck he wants from the pulpit, as long as 25% of that that 10% goes back to the people.

and I patently reject the idea that religion is under attack in this country. 

Bahaha.  See.

[Guest Lobo]

Organized religion is under Attack in this country.  And finally so.  All our lies...are at an end 

[Anastasis 23469]

What exactly do you plan to tax churches on? Donations? "Profit" after expenses?  What measure do you plan to use.  I mean, this is a shitty political stance to take, but if you want to go there flesh out the actual approach to be used and what basis you are going to tax on. 

[Guest Lobo]

Well we can start with the fact that a locally run small business can’t avoid taxes by saying, “we gotta kick up to the regional holding Corp who then kicks up to the international conglomerate.  Therefore we magically all get a deduction for that dollar amount, plus the baked in administrative costs.   So actually you owe us a few bucks, here’s an envelope.   Thanks”

catholics think it’s a wild fucking coincidence that the cosa nostra finance model is based exactly on that of their home church   

 

 

[CooterBrown 18005]

Fuck religion.

 

[Incredulity 11664]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What exactly do you plan to tax churches on? Donations? "Profit" after expenses?  What measure do you plan to use.  I mean, this is a shitty political stance to take, but if you want to go there flesh out the actual approach to be used and what basis you are going to tax on. 

.001 cent per word for each Sermon sounds about right.

 

Get to the point already.

[BrickHorn 18218]

Thoughts and prayers for the victims of the Attack on Religion.

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

.001 cent per word for each Sermon sounds about right.

 

Get to the point already.

Now, there may be something to this. 

[Chad Fuck 17669]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now, there may be something to this. 

You'd definitely have preachers getting to the point faster if they were incentivized. 

[TwiceHorn 31448]

There are two main ways "religion" avoids taxation.  There is an exemption in most states' codes for property taxes (and income taxes, if any).  And, for federal income taxation, they are 501(c)(3) exempt.  Many organizations other than churches are 501(c)(3) exempt.

Eliminating 501(c)(3) for churches (rather than everything) would be legally problematic.  Eliminating it altogether would be problematic problematic.

Eliminating the property tax exemption would probably be most immediately crippling to legitimate churches.

Rigorously enforcing the proscriptions of 501(c)(3) on political activity and individual benefit, across the board, would probably be a good thing.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 13032]

Twice, what other organizations get property tax exemptions? I’m legit asking because I don’t know. It seems to me that there is no reason for a church to not pay property taxes but maybe I don’t understand the issue well enough.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

If Lyle Lovett was the preacher, I'd never miss a service, even though he's an Aggie.

[TwiceHorn 31448]

12 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Twice, what other organizations get property tax exemptions? I’m legit asking because I don’t know. It seems to me that there is no reason for a church to not pay property taxes but maybe I don’t understand the issue well enough.

It depends on the state, and I didn't know until you asked, but Texas exempts property taxes for all charitable organizations, much like 501(c)(3).  https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/exemptions/index.php.  Worth noting that while Texas has an exemption specifically for religious organizations and a separate one for charitable ones, there is significant overlap:  a religious organization must also qualify as a charitable organization.

So, again, if a church otherwise qualifies as a charitable organization, denying exemption because it's religious would probably be a problem.

But, again, closer examination of how "chartitable" or "non-profit" any organization is seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

As usual, the IRS has some pretty good info on 501(c)(3) https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

Edited October 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Junior Miller 1502]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What exactly do you plan to tax churches on? Donations? "Profit" after expenses?  What measure do you plan to use.  I mean, this is a shitty political stance to take, but if you want to go there flesh out the actual approach to be used and what basis you are going to tax on. 

I think they should get an option. You can remain tax free if you make your finances 100 percent publicly available and transparent, and that includes money paid to the preacher. 

You should also be forced to have this information posted inside your church at the entrance and exits so your people has the opportunity to see where their donations are going. 

That way if you are a legitimate charity operation church then you have nothing to worry about because you get to show how you're helping the community. If you're one of these evengelical megachurch pieces of shit then your game just got blasted. 

[txhorns 2409]

11 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

I think they should get an option. You can remain tax free if you make your finances 100 percent publicly available and transparent, and that includes money paid to the preacher. 

You should also be forced to have this information posted inside your church at the entrance and exits so your people has the opportunity to see where their donations are going. 

That way if you are a legitimate charity operation church then you have nothing to worry about because you get to show how you're helping the community. If you're one of these evengelical megachurch pieces of shit then your game just got blasted. 

Every church I've ever attended has been pretty transparent with this information.  Once again it's the megs Joel Osteen type churches that ruin the reputation of everyone.  That's a very small percentage of churches.

Even with those churches, is it really those churches who cause the problems or is it the multiple "charities" that the church and pastor have on the side that are the problem?

[softlynow 1814]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I suppose we have to admit that there is a somewhat unfounded hostility toward all religion based almost solely on the transgressions of evangelicals.

If you don't want to admit that most Methodists and Episcopalians are ok. then think of the Buddhists or the Unitarians, or the Rosicrucians ffs.

I can't speak for the Methodists, but there was a time when a bunch of Episcopalians wanted to push us towards evangelical shitheadism. Fortunately most of the frozen chosen said "no thank you" and they just left the church. Of course, the ECUSA continues to lose membership at a steady rate.

[Anastasis 23469]

34 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

I think they should get an option. You can remain tax free if you make your finances 100 percent publicly available and transparent, and that includes money paid to the preacher. 

You should also be forced to have this information posted inside your church at the entrance and exits so your people has the opportunity to see where their donations are going. 

That way if you are a legitimate charity operation church then you have nothing to worry about because you get to show how you're helping the community. If you're one of these evengelical megachurch pieces of shit then your game just got blasted. 

These are all required under the bylaws of my parish.  

[TwiceHorn 31448]

16 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I can't speak for the Methodists, but there was a time when a bunch of Episcopalians wanted to push us towards evangelical shitheadism. Fortunately most of the frozen chosen said "no thank you" and they just left the church. Of course, the ECUSA continues to lose membership at a steady rate.

That was partially in jest, but those two denominations, among many, are rarely at the forefront of most shitheadism (love it).  There's also a healthy streak of flat out pinko (also jest) liberalism in both denominations, Roman Catholics, as well (birth control and divorce policies and molestation "policy" notwithstanding).

[Junior Miller 1502]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

These are all required under the bylaws of my parish.  

Need to be required by US law. 

I'm all for legitimate charity non profits getting tax exemption whether they rattle on about supernatural beings or not. 

I'm not ok with these greedy fuck evangelicals ripping people off for their own benefit and getting the same treatment. 

[jimmyjazz 45898]

The taxation discussion is interesting, if not exactly where I was headed with the thread, but OK.

Would it be legal to tie taxes to the percent of "revenue" that goes to actual charity?

[TwiceHorn 31448]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The taxation discussion is interesting, if not exactly where I was headed with the thread, but OK.

Would it be legal to tie taxes to the percent of "revenue" that goes to actual charity?

Probably, if you did it for all charities.

[workswithseed 2100]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The taxation discussion is interesting, if not exactly where I was headed with the thread, but OK.

Would it be legal to tie taxes to the percent of "revenue" that goes to actual charity?

I think most agree with ya. Twice do Tax money ever go to a church at all? I wouldn't think so, but I'm just assuming.

[TwiceHorn 31448]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I think most agree with ya. Twice do Tax money ever go to a church at all? I wouldn't think so, but I'm just assuming.

I don't know.  Sometimes it does, in the name of some social or charitable program.  Someone usually bitches and it stops.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably, if you did it for all charities.

The simplest math would be to tax all revenue that doesn't go to charity.  So, strong non-profits that send 90% of the money on would only pay taxes on 10%.

Even then, I'd be willing to waive those taxes.  Automatically adjust income with a 10% (or whatever) deduction and then go from there.

[formermav43 4606]

1 hour ago, Junior Miller said:

I think they should get an option. You can remain tax free if you make your finances 100 percent publicly available and transparent, and that includes money paid to the preacher. 

You should also be forced to have this information posted inside your church at the entrance and exits so your people has the opportunity to see where their donations are going. 

That way if you are a legitimate charity operation church then you have nothing to worry about because you get to show how you're helping the community. If you're one of these evengelical megachurch pieces of shit then your game just got blasted. 

The church I attend has a year-to-date report of contributions and expenditures, as well as a comparison with the annual budget, printed up every month and placed by the door for anyone to pick up. You’re welcome to come get a copy.

[Junior Miller 1502]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The taxation discussion is interesting, if not exactly where I was headed with the thread, but OK.

Would it be legal to tie taxes to the percent of "revenue" that goes to actual charity?

As far as Barr it's the Republican MO to cover up their crimes by claiming victim status wherever they can even find the slightest area to claim it. Since their base is a lot of supernatural believers they're going to utilize that to get them to overlook the the fact that not only are they criminals but they're fucking over the people who vote for them as well. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

The church I attend has a year-to-date report of contributions and expenditures, as well as a comparison with the annual budget, printed up every month and placed by the door for anyone to pick up. You’re welcome to come get a copy.

well in that case under my scenario they would be in compliance with the law and remain tax free and have nothing to worry about. 

Do you think Jeffress or Osteen's church do the same thing?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

2 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

As far as Barr it's the Republican MO to cover up their crimes by claiming victim status wherever they can even find the slightest area to claim it. Since their base is a lot of supernatural believers they're going to utilize that to get them to overlook the the fact that not only are they criminals but they're fucking over the people who vote for them as well. 

take it even further, since some people believe in a sky king, they'll probably believe it if you tell them that god told them to break our earthen laws - you know, for Jesus.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

The church I attend has a year-to-date report of contributions and expenditures, as well as a comparison with the annual budget, printed up every month and placed by the door for anyone to pick up. You’re welcome to come get a copy.

my company has that too. it's called responsible accounting. do you want a cookie?

[SimonBolivar 10958]

All this talk and y'all don't even mention how this separation hurts our mandate of heaven. 

[formermav43 4606]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

my company has that too. it's called responsible accounting. do you want a cookie?

Sure, I love cookies.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

All this talk and y'all don't even mention how this separation hurts our mandate of heaven. 

dude, don't start. trying to suppress the 10-page rant I have about religion and how it has held us back as a species consistently since the dawn of time. 

[TwiceHorn 31448]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

dude, don't start. trying to suppress the 10-page rant I have about religion and how it has held us back as a species consistently since the dawn of time. 

[BrickHorn 18218]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

dude, don't start. trying to suppress the 10-page rant I have about religion and how it has held us back as a species consistently since the dawn of time. 

Welcome to the lanai.  What are you drinking?

[TwiceHorn 31448]

21 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

my company has that too. it's called responsible accounting. do you want a cookie?

Most privately owned companies do not.

Are you trying to prove that there isn't a war on religion?  Or that it's a one-man war comprised of you?  Or just that it's justified because of  . . .  wait for it  . . .  your beliefs.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

I think religious organizations should be able to own property, tax free, in perpetuity. What’s the worst that could happen. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

8 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Welcome to the lanai.  What are you drinking?

bleach

[formermav43 4606]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Most privately owned companies do not.

Are you trying to prove that there isn't a war on religion?  Or that it's a one-man war comprised of you?  Or just that it's justified because of  . . .  wait for it  . . .  your beliefs.

I’d hoped he was simply giving away cookies.

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

I’d hoped he was simply giving away cookies.

So the Doubletree Hotel chain is now a front for organized religion?  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Most privately owned companies do not.

Are you trying to prove that there isn't a war on religion?  Or that it's a one-man war comprised of you?  Or just that it's justified because of  . . .  wait for it  . . .  your beliefs.

what? there's isn't a fucking war on religion. gtfo of here with that shit. if anything there is a war against any religion (or non believers) not called christianity. i don't give two shits what you believe or worship, but keep it out of my laws and my life. there. clear enough for you?

Edited October 18, 2019 by Longhorn_Fan68

[workswithseed 2100]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what? there's isn't a fucking war on religion. gtfo of here with that shit. if anything there is a war against any religion (or non believers) no called christianity. i don't give two shits what you believe or worship, but keep it out of my laws and my life. there. clear enough for you?

Were you a Catholic as a child, cause then I can understand.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Were you a Catholic as a child, cause then I can understand.

yup. bonus points for being an alter boy for a while. catholic school (including all boys HS) until I got to UT. great education. not molested. very not religious anymore

[jimmyjazz 45898]

It would be beyond super cool if y'all could avoid turning this into an argument about the validity/stupidity of religion.